Beating a dead horse ?

[rkoy]

ok

guys this from someone who KNOWS nothing about RK but if i were to see the 8 and 3 like that on an EK i wanted i would have to pass! i find it hard to believe that a sloppy job like that would be let go. i mean this is the MOH of germany and i hope the craftsmen who made it would want to show there best work not there average good enough for government work...just my opinion i havent been following along with the s&l or the deumer thing just from what i see on the cross herrgeezer wants to buy......rodney

[W. C. Stump]

Originally posted by David Tiffin
John,
So, could you provide a list of known makers of the 1939 Knights Cross? We want to know what your opinion is. What about the crosses in the photos with the rounded corners?

Johnny old chap, why not supply the list of firms authorized by the LDO to manufacture the Knights Cross. The old country bumpkin want to see also.

[Mark S.]

Mr Lawrence,

Please reevaluate this cross you are prepared to buy. Rodney makes an excellent point about the details. That 1813 looks pretty gnarly.

[Kyle Harrington]

Rounded RK

Having more knowledge on Hungarian poetry than RK'S is one thing, the scrunched up 3 on the reverse is another and should start the old alarm bells ringing.This piece would not ,surely? be passed by any known maker of RK'S ? As the supposed premier
piece of the military one has to be sceptical.

[ChrisJ]

Come on !

I'm sorry gents... but I think that this is an occasion where the picture does not do justice to the piece. Every "Deumer" that I have handled, and I mean HANDLED rather than observed on the old PC, has been superb. Lets have some better pictures of the centre of the RK and the date "1813" before casting this piece to the proverbial "dustbin." ("trash can" for the US readers).
Now before anyone says I have a vested interest... I dont own one of these crosses, and do not believe their case to be proven, certainly not to my satisfaction, but my observations are based on having owned four of this type of cross over the past 10 years, and of having studied these examples minutely.
Keep it up fellas... we will get there in the end !

[Tiger 1]

John J,
There are alot of us out here who are collectors in search of the truth about the things we choose to collect. Most of us do not have "shops". As for dropping names, do not confuse someone referred to by name as a reference as name dropping. Belonging to "cliques", well that's a label that can be applied anytime a group of like minded individuals get together to enjoy their common interest whether it be collecting military antiques, sports, or opera. So what!
I take some umbrage to your satement "that explaining the merits of an original piece is not a good sign." Examining and discussing the merits of an original piece is always a learning experience, whether you're an experienced old salt in collecting or someone just starting out. A long time ago the best advice I learned from an old time collector was to eliminate the words "always" and "never" from my collecting lexicon. That advice has served me very well in being able to keep an open mind when searching for collecting treasures. I'm not saying to be guilible just keep your mind open to different lines of thought. You may learn something new.
Some of your other statements also cause one to raise an eyebrow. In particular your admission to knowing all the "crooks' in the business in the last 25 years! What's up with that!? That in it self is questionable as far as credibility is concerned. As is your concern about pinning on or pulling off the "expert" badges and the mumbo- jumbo about reading between the lines. Yes , most of us who have been around in any field of collecting know that there are some errors on occasion in the reference materials we use. Because something inaccurate is published does not mean there was subterfuge or malicious intent. As with any information in life that we process on a daily basis we all have a mind with which to make decisions with. That's what makes boards like this one valueable as a means of getting out new information as it becomes available. It gives both the novice and the old salt a means of furthering our hobby. Coming in to these discussions with a condesending attitude and a warhammer style of response to a sugestion that doesn't square with your beliefs doesn't do anyone any good. Slandering anyones professional reputation is not a good way to enhance your credabilty. That's just boorish.
On a final note I'll ask you about "dodges". It seems that when ever a question is asked of you to clarify your position or statement you "dodge" the issue with a condesending remark or fail to address the question asked of you. Why is that? We are all here on this board to further our knowledge of collecting German medals, orders and decorations. When someone asks a question it generally is in search of a sincere response. Let's call it a search for truth. What is the truth, John?
Best regards and good hunting!
Tiger 1

[Gordon Williamson]

The dates on these so-called Deumer crosses are in fact less well defined than on other pieces such as S&L, K&Q, Juncker etc. However, the early RK with the 3/4 eye also in fact has similarly "weak" numerals as do many early Schinkel type pieces. Many fakes on the other hand had nice sharp well defined numerals, so I'm afraid the quality and sharpness of the numeral definition is of no real help in determining originality or otherwise of an RK

Please keep this thread on track and keep personalities out of it otherwise it will be removed and "cleansed" of all ZAV posts.
Gordon